Molly Zin Wrote:
Jul 24, 2013 3:25 AM
I'm glad this writer wasn't on the jury, since he apparently didn't watch any of the testimony before making up his facts. 1. Martin was suspicious because he was walking in the dark, in pouring rain, close to the backs of peoples houses where he could see into the windows. Whether or not he was actually doing anything illegal is immaterial--he was behaving in a way that evoked suspicion in an observer, and that is perfectly reasonable grounds for a call for police to come check, especially in a community that had suffered multiple break-ins and robberies--over one a month for the past year. 2. The dispatcher did not order Zimmerman to stay in his car, and neighborhood watch did not either. Zimmerman had been out of his car for some time before the dispatcher asked him about it, and when he told Zimmerman he didn't need to follow Martin, Zimmerman's answer was, "okay." 3. Zimmerman didn't "have delusions he was in law enforcement", he had concerns for his community and a willingness to voluteer and work for its safety, something we need from far more people, not something to disparage. 4. He didn't "track Martin through the community", he tried to see which way Martin went. It was clear from the dispatcher's recording that Zimmerman didn't see Martin and didn't know where he went when he ran off after circling Zimmerman's truck and staring at him. 5. The prosecution presented no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman was lying and had started the confrontation, just proposed a theory and then repeated it endlessly. The evidence shown supported Zimmerman's statements, not the prosecution's groundless theory.